U.S. DEPARTMENT AUGUST 2013

Transcription

1 FY 2013 RACE TO THE TOP DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WASHINGTON, D.C AUGUST 2013 FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 1

2 BACKGROUND Race to the Top is authorized under sections and of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The Race to the Top State competitions provided incentives to States to adopt bold and comprehensive reforms in elementary and secondary education and laid the foundation for unprecedented innovation. A total of 46 States and the District of Columbia put together plans to implement college- and career-ready standards, use data systems to guide learning and teaching, evaluate and support teachers and school leaders, and turn around their lowest-performing schools. The purpose of the Race to the Top District competition is to build on the momentum of other Race to the Top competitions by encouraging bold, innovative reform at the local level. In the FY 2012 competition, the Department awarded approximately $383 million to 16 Race to the Top District grantees representing 55 local educational agencies (LEAs), with grants ranging from $10 to $40 million. The Race to the Top District competition invites applicants to demonstrate how they can personalize education for all students in their schools. The Race to the Top District competition is aimed squarely at classrooms and the all-important relationship between educators and students. An LEA or consortium of LEAs receiving an award under this competition will build on the experience of States and districts in implementing reforms in the four core educational assurance areas (as defined in this notice 1 ) through Race to the Top and other key programs. A successful applicant will provide teachers the information, tools, and supports that will enable them to meet the needs of each student and substantially accelerate and deepen each student s learning. These LEAs will have the policies, systems, infrastructure, capacity, and culture to enable teachers, teacher teams, and school leaders to continuously focus on improving individual student achievement and closing achievement gaps. These LEAs will also make equity and access a priority and aim to prepare each student to master the content and skills required for college- and career-readiness, provide each student the opportunity to pursue a rigorous course of study, and accelerate and deepen students learning through attention to their individual needs. As important, they will create opportunities for students to identify and pursue areas of personal academic interest all while ensuring that each student masters critical areas identified in college- and career-ready standards or college- and career-ready high school graduation requirements. KEY DATES Technical Assistance Webinars: August and September Updates about all events will be available on the Race to the Top District website at Intent to Apply Due: August 23, 2013 Application Due: October 3, 2013 Grant Award Announcement: December The NFP establishes the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria and the Notice Inviting Applications (NIA) explains how the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria established in the NFP apply to the FY 2013 competition. When we refer to the term notice in these FAQs, we are referring to the NIA. Many relevant sections of the notice are included in this document for the convenience of applicants. The Department will publish the NFP and the NIA for the Fiscal Year 2013 Race to the Top District competition in the Federal Register. The final NFP and NIA will be posted on the Race to the Top District Web site at www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district once they are published in the Federal Register. FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 2

3 OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM AND POINTS Selection Criteria A. Vision (40 total points) (A)(1) Articulating a comprehensive and coherent reform vision (10 points) (A)(2) Applicant s approach to implementation (10 points) (A)(3) LEA-wide reform & change (10 points) (A)(4) LEA-wide goals for improved student outcomes (10 points) B. Prior Record of Success and Conditions for Reform (45 total points) (B)(1) Demonstrating a clear track record of success (15 points) (B)(2) Increasing transparency in LEA processes, practices, and investments (5 points) (B)(3) State context for implementation (10 points) (B)(4) Stakeholder engagement and support (15 points) C. Preparing Students for College and Careers (40 total points) (C)(1) Learning (20 points) (C)(2) Teaching and Leading (20 points) D. LEA Policy and Infrastructure (25 total points) (D)(1) LEA practices, policies, and rules (15 points) (D)(2) LEA and school infrastructure (10 points) E. Continuous Improvement (30 total points) (E)(1) Continuous improvement process (15 points) (E)(2) Ongoing communication and engagement (5 points) (E)(3) Performance measures (5 points) (E)(4) Evaluating effectiveness of investments (5 points) F. Budget and Sustainability (20 total points) (F)(1) Budget for the project (10 points) (F)(2) Sustainability of project goals (10 points) Competitive Preference Priority (10 total points) ABSOLUTE PRIORITIES Absolute Priority 1: Personalized Learning Environments. Absolute Priority 2: Non-Rural LEAs in Race to the Top States. Absolute Priority 3: Rural LEAs in Race to the Top States. Absolute Priority 4: Non-Rural LEAs in non-race to the Top States. Absolute Priority 5: Rural LEAs in non-race to the Top States. Race to the Top States are those that received Phase 1, 2, or 3 Race to the Top grants: Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. LEAs in States that received only a Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge grant must indicate Absolute Priority 4 or 5. FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 3

4 ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS To be eligible for a grant under this competition: (a) An applicant must be an individual LEA (as defined in this notice) or a consortium of individual LEAs from one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. (i) LEAs may apply for all or a portion of their schools, for specific grades, or for subject-area bands (e.g., lowest-performing schools, secondary schools, schools connected by a feeder pattern, middle school math, or preschool through third grade). (ii) Consortia may include LEAs from multiple States. (iii) Each LEA may participate in only one Race to the Top District application. Successful applicants (i.e., grantees) from past Race to the Top District competitions may not apply for additional funding. (b) An applicant must serve a minimum of 2,000 participating students (as defined in this notice) or may serve fewer than 2,000 participating students (as defined in this notice) provided those students are served by a consortium of at least 10 LEAs and at least 75 percent of the students served by each LEA are participating students (as defined in this notice). An applicant must base its requested award amount on the number of participating students (as defined in this notice) it proposes to serve at the time of application or within the first 100 days of the grant award. (c) At least 40 percent of participating students (as defined in this notice) across all participating schools (as defined in this notice) must be students from low-income families, based on eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch subsidies under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, or other poverty measures that LEAs use to make awards under section 1113(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). If an applicant has not identified all participating schools (as defined in this notice) at the time of application, it must provide an assurance that within 100 days of the grant award it will meet this requirement. (d) An applicant must demonstrate its commitment to the core educational assurance areas (as defined in this notice), including, for each LEA included in an application, an assurance signed by the LEA s superintendent or chief executive officer (CEO) that (i) The LEA, at a minimum, will implement no later than the school year (A) A teacher evaluation system (as defined in this notice); (B) A principal evaluation system (as defined in this notice); and (C) A superintendent evaluation (as defined in this notice); (ii) The LEA is committed to preparing all students for college or career, as demonstrated by (A) Being located in a State that has adopted college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice); or (B) Measuring all student progress and performance against college- and careerready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice); (iii) The LEA has a robust data system that has, at a minimum (A) An individual teacher identifier with a teacher-student match; and (B) The capability to provide timely data back to educators and their supervisors on student growth (as defined in this notice); FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 4

5 (iv) The LEA has the capability to receive or match student-level preschool-through-12th grade and higher education data; and (v) The LEA ensures that any disclosure of or access to personally identifiable information in students education records complies with the Families Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). (e) Required signatures for the LEA or lead LEA in a consortium are those of the superintendent or CEO, local school board president, and local teacher union or association president (where applicable). FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 5

6 BUDGET REQUIREMENTS An applicant s budget request for all years of its project must fall within the applicable budget range as follows: Number of participating students (as defined in this Award range notice) 2,000-5,000 $4-10 million or Fewer than 2,000, provided those students are served by a consortium of at least 10 LEAs and at least 75 percent of the students served by each LEA are participating students (as defined in this notice) 5,001-10,000 $10-20 million 10,001-20,000 $20-25 million 20,001+ $25-30 million The Department will not consider an application that requests a budget outside the applicable range of awards. ABSOLUTE PRIORITIES Absolute Priority 1: Personalized Learning Environments. To meet this priority, an applicant must coherently and comprehensively address how it will build on the core educational assurance areas (as defined in this notice) to create learning environments that are designed to significantly improve learning and teaching through the personalization of strategies, tools, and supports for students and educators that are aligned with college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and careerready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice); accelerate student achievement and deepen student learning by meeting the academic needs of each student; increase the effectiveness of educators; expand student access to the most effective educators; decrease achievement gaps across student groups; and increase the rates at which students graduate from high school prepared for college and careers. Absolute Priority 2: Non-Rural LEAs in Race to the Top States. 2 To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in this notice) are in non-rural LEAs in States that received awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. Absolute Priority 3: Rural LEAs in Race to the Top States. To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in this 2 Race to the Top Phase 1, 2, and 3 States are: Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia. FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 6

7 notice) are in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice) in States that received awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. Absolute Priority 4: Non-Rural LEAs in non-race to the Top States. To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in this notice) are in non-rural LEAs in States that did not receive awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. Absolute Priority 5: Rural LEAs in non-race to the Top States. To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in this notice) are in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice) in States that did not receive awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 7

8 SELECTION CRITERIA A. Vision (40 total points) (A)(1) Articulating a comprehensive and coherent reform vision (10 points) The extent to which the applicant has set forth a comprehensive and coherent reform vision that (a) Builds on its work in four core educational assurance areas (as defined in this notice); (b) Articulates a clear and credible approach to the goals of accelerating student achievement, deepening student learning, and increasing equity through personalized student support grounded in common and individual tasks that are based on student academic interests; and (c) Describes what the classroom experience will be like for students and teachers participating in personalized learning environments. (A)(2) Applicant s approach to implementation (10 points) The extent to which the applicant s approach to implementing its reform proposal (e.g., schools, grade bands, or subject areas) will support high-quality LEA-level and school-level implementation of that proposal, including (a) A description of the process that the applicant used or will use to select schools to participate. The process must ensure that the participating schools (as defined in this notice) collectively meet the competition s eligibility requirements; (b) A list of the schools that will participate in grant activities (as available); and (c) The total number of participating students (as defined in this notice), participating students (as defined in this notice) from low-income families, participating students (as defined in this notice) who are high-need students (as defined in this notice), and participating educators (as defined in this notice). If participating schools (as defined in this notice) have yet to be selected, the applicant may provide approximate numbers. (A)(3) LEA-wide reform & change (10 points) The extent to which the application includes a high-quality plan (as defined in this notice) describing how the reform proposal will be scaled up and translated into meaningful reform to support district-wide change beyond the participating schools (as defined in this notice), and will help the applicant reach its outcome goals (e.g., the applicant s logic model or theory of change of how its plan will improve student learning outcomes for all students who would be served by the applicant). (A)(4) LEA-wide goals for improved student outcomes (10 points) The extent to which the applicant s vision is likely to result in improved student learning and performance and increased equity as demonstrated by ambitious yet achievable annual goals that are equal to or exceed State ESEA targets for the LEA(s), overall and by student subgroup (as defined in this notice), for each participating LEA in the following areas: (a) Performance on summative assessments (proficiency status and growth). (b) Decreasing achievement gaps (as defined in this notice). (c) Graduation rates (as defined in this notice). (d) College enrollment (as defined in this notice) rates. Optional: The extent to which the applicant s vision is likely to result in improved student learning and performance and increased equity as demonstrated by ambitious yet achievable annual goals for each FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 8

9 participating LEA in the following area: (e) Postsecondary degree attainment. B. Prior Record of Success and Conditions for Reform (45 total points) (B)(1) Demonstrating a clear track record of success (15 points) The extent to which each LEA has demonstrated evidence of A clear record of success in the past four years in advancing student learning and achievement and increasing equity in learning and teaching, including a description, charts or graphs, raw student data, and other evidence that demonstrates the applicant s ability to (a) Improve student learning outcomes and close achievement gaps (as defined in this notice), including by raising student achievement, high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice), and college enrollment (as defined in this notice) rates; (b) Achieve ambitious and significant reforms in its persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in this notice) or in its low-performing schools (as defined in this notice); and (c) Make student performance data (as defined in this notice) available to students, educators (as defined in this notice), and parents in ways that inform and improve participation, instruction, and services. (B)(2) Increasing transparency in LEA processes, practices, and investments (5 points) The extent to which each LEA has demonstrated evidence of A high level of transparency in LEA processes, practices, and investments, including by making public, by school, actual school-level expenditures for regular K-12 instruction, instructional support, pupil support, and school administration. At a minimum, this information must include a description of the extent to which the applicant already makes available the following four categories of school-level expenditures from State and local funds: (a) Actual personnel salaries at the school level for all school-level instructional and support staff, based on the U.S. Census Bureau s classification used in the F-33 survey of local government finances (information on the survey can be found at (b) Actual personnel salaries at the school level for instructional staff only; (c) Actual personnel salaries at the school level for teachers only; and (d) Actual non-personnel expenditures at the school level (if available). (B)(3) State context for implementation (10 points) The extent to which each LEA has demonstrated evidence of Successful conditions and sufficient autonomy under State legal, statutory, and regulatory requirements to implement the personalized learning environments described in the applicant s proposal. (B)(4) Stakeholder engagement and support (15 points) The extent to which each LEA has demonstrated evidence of Meaningful stakeholder engagement throughout the development of the proposal and meaningful stakeholder support for the proposal, including (a) A description of how students, families, teachers, and principals in participating schools (as defined in this notice) were engaged in the development of the proposal and, as appropriate, how FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 9

10 the proposal was revised based on their engagement and feedback, including (i) For LEAs with collective bargaining representation, evidence of direct engagement and support for the proposals from teachers in participating schools (as defined in this notice); or (ii) For LEAs without collective bargaining representation, at a minimum, evidence that at least 70 percent of teachers from participating schools (as defined in this notice) support the proposal; and (b) Letters of support from such key stakeholders as parents and parent organizations, student organizations, early learning programs, tribes, the business community, civil rights organizations, advocacy groups, local civic and community-based organizations, and institutions of higher education. C. Preparing Students for College and Careers (40 total points) (C)(1) Learning (20 points) The extent to which the applicant has a high-quality plan (as defined in this notice) for improving learning and teaching by personalizing the learning environment in order to provide all students the support to graduate college- and career-ready. This plan must include an approach to implementing instructional strategies for all participating students (as defined in this notice) that enable participating students to pursue a rigorous course of study aligned to college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) and college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice) and accelerate his or her learning through support of his or her needs. This includes the extent to which the applicant proposes an approach that includes the following: Learning: An approach to learning that engages and empowers all learners, in particular high-need students (as defined in this notice), in an age-appropriate manner such that: (a) With the support of parents and educators, all students (i) Understand that what they are learning is key to their success in accomplishing their goals; (ii) Identify and pursue learning and development goals linked to college- and careerready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice), understand how to structure their learning to achieve their goals, and measure progress toward those goals; (iii) Are able to be involved in deep learning experiences in areas of academic interest; (iv) Have access and exposure to diverse cultures, contexts, and perspectives that motivate and deepen individual student learning; and (v) Master critical academic content and develop skills and traits such as goal-setting, teamwork, perseverance, critical thinking, communication, creativity, and problemsolving; (b) With the support of parents and educators (as defined in this notice), each student has access to (i) A personalized sequence of instructional content and skill development designed to enable the student to achieve his or her individual learning goals and ensure he or she can graduate on time and college- and career-ready; (ii) A variety of high-quality instructional approaches and environments; (iii) High-quality content, including digital learning content (as defined in this notice) as FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 10

11 appropriate, aligned with college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice); (iv) Ongoing and regular feedback, including, at a minimum (A) Frequently updated individual student data that can be used to determine progress toward mastery of college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice), or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice); and (B) Personalized learning recommendations based on the student s current knowledge and skills, college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice), and available content, instructional approaches, and supports; and (v) Accommodations and high-quality strategies for high-need students (as defined in this notice) to help ensure that they are on track toward meeting college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice); and (c) Mechanisms are in place to provide training and support to students that will ensure that they understand how to use the tools and resources provided to them in order to track and manage their learning. (C)(2) Teaching and Leading (20 points) The extent to which the applicant has a high-quality plan (as defined in this notice) for improving learning and teaching by personalizing the learning environment in order to provide all students the support to graduate college- and career-ready. This plan must include an approach to implementing instructional strategies for all participating students (as defined in this notice) that enable participating students to pursue a rigorous course of study aligned to college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) and college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice) and accelerate his or her learning through support of his or her needs. This includes the extent to which the applicant proposes an approach that includes the following: Teaching and Leading: An approach to teaching and leading that helps educators (as defined in this notice) to improve instruction and increase their capacity to support student progress toward meeting college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice) by enabling the full implementation of personalized learning and teaching for all students, in particular high-need students (as defined in this notice), such that: (a) All participating educators (as defined in this notice) engage in training, and in professional teams or communities, that supports their individual and collective capacity to (i) Support the effective implementation of personalized learning environments and strategies that meet each student s academic needs and help ensure all students can graduate on time and college- and career-ready; (ii) Adapt content and instruction, providing opportunities for students to engage in common and individual tasks, in response to their academic needs, academic interests, and optimal learning approaches (e.g., discussion and collaborative work, project-based learning, videos, audio, manipulatives); (iii) Frequently measure student progress toward meeting college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 11

12 (as defined in this notice) and use data to inform both the acceleration of student progress and the improvement of the individual and collective practice of educators (as defined in this notice); and (iv) Improve teachers and principals practice and effectiveness by using feedback provided by the LEA s teacher and principal evaluation systems (as defined in this notice), including frequent feedback on individual and collective effectiveness, as well as by providing recommendations, supports, and interventions as needed for improvement. (b) All participating educators (as defined in this notice) have access to, and know how to use, tools, data, and resources to accelerate student progress toward meeting college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice). Those resources must include (i) Actionable information that helps educators (as defined in this notice) identify optimal learning approaches that respond to individual student academic needs and interests; (ii) High-quality learning resources (e.g., instructional content and assessments), including digital resources, as appropriate, that are aligned with college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice), and the tools to create and share new resources; and (iii) Processes and tools to match student needs (see Selection Criterion (C)(2)(b)(i)) with specific resources and approaches (see Selection Criterion (C)(2)(b)(ii)) to provide continuously improving feedback about the effectiveness of the resources in meeting student needs. (c) All participating school leaders and school leadership teams (as defined in this notice) have training, policies, tools, data, and resources that enable them to structure an effective learning environment that meets individual student academic needs and accelerates student progress through common and individual tasks toward meeting college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice). The training, policies, tools, data, and resources must include: (i) Information, from such sources as the district s teacher evaluation system (as defined in this notice), that helps school leaders and school leadership teams (as defined in this notice) assess, and take steps to improve, individual and collective educator effectiveness and school culture and climate, for the purpose of continuous school improvement; and (ii) Training, systems, and practices to continuously improve school progress toward the goals of increasing student performance and closing achievement gaps (as defined in this notice). (d) The applicant has a high-quality plan (as defined in this notice) for increasing the number of students who receive instruction from effective and highly effective teachers and principals (as defined in this notice), including in hard-to-staff schools, subjects (such as mathematics and science), and specialty areas (such as special education). D. LEA Policy and Infrastructure (25 total points) The extent to which the applicant has a high-quality plan (as defined in this notice) to support project implementation through comprehensive policies and infrastructure that provide every student, educator (as defined in this notice), and level of the education system (classroom, school, and LEA) with the FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 12

13 support and resources they need, when and where they are needed. This includes the extent to which (D)(1) LEA practices, policies, and rules (15 points) The applicant has practices, policies, and rules that facilitate personalized learning by (a) Organizing the LEA central office, or the consortium governance structure (as defined in this notice), to provide support and services to all participating schools (as defined in this notice); (b) Providing school leadership teams (as defined in this notice) in participating schools (as defined in this notice) with sufficient flexibility and autonomy over factors such as school schedules and calendars, school personnel decisions and staffing models, roles and responsibilities for educators and noneducators, and school-level budgets; (c) Giving students the opportunity to progress and earn credit based on demonstrated mastery, not the amount of time spent on a topic; (d) Giving students the opportunity to demonstrate mastery of standards at multiple times and in multiple comparable ways; and (e) Providing learning resources and instructional practices that are adaptable and fully accessible to all students, including students with disabilities and English learners; and (D)(2) LEA and school infrastructure (10 points) The LEA and school infrastructure supports personalized learning by (a) Ensuring that all participating students (as defined in this notice), parents, educators (as defined in this notice), and other stakeholders (as appropriate and relevant to student learning), regardless of income, have access to necessary content, tools, and other learning resources both in and out of school to support the implementation of the applicant s proposal; (b) Ensuring that students, parents, educators (as defined in this notice), and other stakeholders (as appropriate and relevant to student learning) have appropriate levels of technical support, which may be provided through a range of strategies (e.g., peer support, online support, or local support); (c) Using information technology systems that allow parents and students to export their information in an open data format (as defined in this notice) and to use the data in other electronic learning systems (e.g., electronic tutors, tools that make recommendations for additional learning supports, or software that securely stores personal records); and (d) Ensuring that LEAs and schools use interoperable data systems (as defined in this notice) (e.g., systems that include human resources data, student information data, budget data, and instructional improvement system data). E. Continuous Improvement (30 total points) Because the applicant s plans represent the best thinking at a point in time, and may require adjustments and revisions during implementation, it is vital that the applicant have a clear and high-quality approach to continuously improve its plans. This will be determined by the extent to which the applicant has (E)(1) Continuous improvement process (15 points) A high-quality plan (as defined in this notice) for implementing a rigorous continuous improvement process that provides timely and regular feedback on progress toward project goals and opportunities for ongoing corrections and improvements during and after the term of the grant. The plan must address how FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 13

14 the applicant will monitor, measure, and publicly share information on the quality of its investments funded by Race to the Top District, such as investments in professional development, technology, and staff; (E)(2) Ongoing communication and engagement (5 points) A high-quality plan (as defined in this notice) for ongoing communication and engagement with internal and external stakeholders; and (E)(3) Performance measures (5 points) Ambitious yet achievable performance measures, overall and by subgroup (as defined in this notice), with annual targets for required and applicant-proposed performance measures. For each applicant-proposed measure, the applicant must describe (a) Its rationale for selecting that measure; (b) How the measure will provide rigorous, timely, and formative leading information tailored to its proposed plan and theory of action regarding the applicant s implementation success or areas of concern; and (c) How it will review and improve the measure over time if it is insufficient to gauge implementation progress. The applicant should have a total of approximately 12 to 14 performance measures. The chart below outlines the required and applicant-proposed performance measures based on an applicant s applicable population. Applicable Population All Performance Measure a) The number and percentage of participating students (as defined in this notice), by subgroup (as defined in this notice), whose teacher of record (as defined in this notice) and principal are a highly effective teacher (as defined in this notice) and a highly effective principal (as defined in this notice); and b) The number and percentage of participating students (as defined in this notice), by subgroup (as defined in this notice), whose teacher of record (as defined in this notice) and principal are an effective teacher (as defined in this notice) and an effective principal (as defined in this notice). PreK-3 a) Applicant must propose at least one age-appropriate measure of students academic growth (e.g., language and literacy development or cognition and general learning, including early mathematics and early scientific development); and b) Applicant must propose at least one age-appropriate non-cognitive indicator of growth (e.g., physical well-being and motor development, or social-emotional development). 4-8 a) The number and percentage of participating students (as defined in this notice), by subgroup, who are on track to college- and career-readiness based on the applicant s on-track indicator (as defined in this notice); b) Applicant must propose at least one grade-appropriate academic leading indicator FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 14

15 of successful implementation of its plan; and c) Applicant must propose at least one grade-appropriate health or social-emotional leading indicator of successful implementation of its plan a) The number and percentage of participating students (as defined in this notice) who complete and submit the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form; b) The number and percentage of participating students (as defined in this notice), by subgroup, who are on track to college- and career-readiness based on the applicant s on-track indicator (as defined in this notice); c) Applicant must propose at least one measure of career-readiness in order to assess the number and percentage of participating students (as defined in this notice) who are or are on track to being career-ready; d) Applicant must propose at least one grade-appropriate academic leading indicator of successful implementation of its plan; and e) Applicant must propose at least one grade-appropriate health or social-emotional leading indicator of successful implementation of its plan. (E)(4) Evaluating effectiveness of investments (5 points) A high-quality plan to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of Race to the Top District funded activities, such as professional development and activities that employ technology. F. Budget and Sustainability (20 total points) The extent to which (F)(1) Budget for the project (10 points) The applicant s budget, including the budget narrative and tables (a) Identifies all funds that will support the project (e.g., Race to the Top District grant; external foundation support; LEA, State, and other Federal funds); (b) Is reasonable and sufficient to support the development and implementation of the applicant s proposal; and (c) Clearly provides a thoughtful rationale for investments and priorities, including (i) A description of all of the funds (e.g., Race to the Top District grant; external foundation support; LEA, State, and other Federal funds) that the applicant will use to support the implementation of the proposal, including total revenue from these sources; and (ii) Identification of the funds that will be used for one-time investments versus those that will be used for ongoing operational costs that will be incurred during and after the grant period, as described in the proposed budget and budget narrative, with a focus on strategies that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the personalized learning environments; and (F)(2) Sustainability of project goals (10 points) The applicant has a high-quality plan (as defined in this notice) for sustainability of the project s goals FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 15

16 after the term of the grant. The plan should include support from State and local government leaders, financial support, and a description of how the applicant will evaluate the effectiveness of past investments and use this data to inform future investments. Such a plan may address how the applicant will evaluate improvements in productivity and outcomes to inform a post-grant budget, and include an estimated budget for the three years after the term of the grant that includes budget assumptions, potential sources, and uses of funds. FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 16

17 Competitive Preference Priority (10 total points) Competitive Preference Priority: Results, Resource Alignment, and Integrated Services. To meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate the extent to which the applicant proposes to integrate public or private resources in a partnership designed to augment the schools resources by providing additional student and family supports to schools that address the social, emotional, or behavioral needs of the participating students (as defined in this notice), giving highest priority to students in participating schools (as defined in this notice) with high-need students (as defined in this notice). To meet this priority, an applicant s proposal does not need to be comprehensive and may provide student and family supports that focus on a subset of these needs. To meet this priority, an applicant must (1) Provide a description of the coherent and sustainable partnership to support the plan described in Absolute Priority 1 that it has formed with public or private organizations, such as public health, before-school, after-school, and social service providers; integrated student service providers; businesses, philanthropies, civic groups, and other community-based organizations; early learning programs; and postsecondary institutions; (2) Identify not more than 10 population-level desired results for students in the LEA or consortium of LEAs that align with and support the applicant s broader Race to the Top District proposal. These results must include both (a) educational results or other education outcomes (e.g., children enter kindergarten prepared to succeed in school, children exit third grade reading at grade level, and students graduate from high school college- and career-ready) and (b) family and community supports (as defined in this notice) results; (3) Describe how the partnership would (a) Track the selected indicators that measure each result at the aggregate level for all children within the LEA or consortium and at the student level for the participating students (as defined in this notice); (b) Use the data to target its resources in order to improve results for participating students (as defined in this notice), with special emphasis on students facing significant challenges, such as students with disabilities, English learners, and students affected by poverty (including highly mobile students), family instability, or other child welfare issues; (c) Develop a strategy to scale the model beyond the participating students (as defined in this notice) to at least other high-need students (as defined in this notice) and communities in the LEA or consortium over time; and (d) Improve results over time; (4) Describe how the partnership would, within participating schools (as defined in this notice), integrate education and other services (e.g., services that address social-emotional and behavioral needs, acculturation for immigrants and refugees) for participating students (as defined in this notice); (5) Describe how the partnership and LEA or consortium would build the capacity of staff in participating schools (as defined in this notice) by providing them with tools and supports to (a) Assess the needs and assets of participating students (as defined in this notice) that are aligned with the partnership s goals for improving the education and family and community supports (as defined in this notice) identified by the partnership; FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 17

18 (b) Identify and inventory the needs and assets of the school and community that are aligned with those goals for improving the education and family and community supports (as defined in this notice) identified by the applicant; (c) Create a decision-making process and infrastructure to select, implement, and evaluate supports that address the individual needs of participating students (as defined in this notice) and support improved results; (d) Engage parents and families of participating students (as defined in this notice) in both decision-making about solutions to improve results over time and in addressing student, family, and school needs; and (e) Routinely assess the applicant s progress in implementing its plan to maximize impact and resolve challenges and problems; and (6) Identify its annual ambitious yet achievable performance measures for the proposed population-level and describe desired results for students. FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 18

19 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The application requirements are: (1) State comment period. Each LEA included in an application must provide its State at least 10 business days to comment on the LEA s application and submit as part of its application package (a) The State s comments or, if the State declined to comment, evidence that the LEA offered the State 10 business days to comment; and (b) The LEA s response to the State s comments (optional). (2) Mayor (or city or town administrator) comment period. Each LEA included in an application must provide its mayor or other comparable official at least 10 business days to comment on the LEA s application and submit as part of its application package (a) The mayor or city or town administrator s comments or, if that individual declines to comment, evidence that the LEA offered such official 10 business days to comment; and (b) The LEA s response to the mayor or city or town administrator comments (optional). (3) Consortium. For LEAs applying as a consortium, the application must (a) Indicate, consistent with 34 CFR , whether (i) One member of the consortium is applying for a grant on behalf of the consortium; or (ii) The consortium has established itself as a separate, eligible legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf; (b) Be signed by (i) If one member of the consortium is applying for a grant on behalf of the consortium, the superintendent or CEO, local school board president, and local teacher union or association president (where applicable) of that LEA; or (ii) If the consortium has established itself as a separate eligible legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf, a legal representative of the consortium; and (c) Include, consistent with 34 CFR , for each LEA in the consortium, copies of all memoranda of understanding or other binding agreements related to the consortium. These binding agreements must (i) Detail the activities that each member of the consortium plans to perform; (ii) Describe the consortium governance structure (as defined in this notice); (iii) Bind each member of the consortium to every statement and assurance made in the application; and (iv) Include an assurance signed by the LEA s superintendent or CEO that (A) The LEA, at a minimum, will implement no later than the school year (1) A teacher evaluation system (as defined in this notice); (2) A principal evaluation system (as defined in this notice); and (3) A superintendent evaluation (as defined in this notice); (B) The LEA is committed to preparing students for college or career, as demonstrated by (1) Being located in a State that has adopted college- and careerready standards (as defined in this notice); or (2) Measuring all student progress and performance against college- FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 19

20 and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice); (C) The LEA has a robust data system that has, at a minimum (1) An individual teacher identifier with a teacher-student match; and (2) The capability to provide timely data back to educators and their supervisors on student growth (as defined in this notice); (D) The LEA has the capability to receive or match student-level preschoolthrough-12th grade and higher education data; and (E) The LEA ensures that any disclosure of or access to personally identifiable information in students education records complies with the FERPA; and (v) Be signed by the superintendent or CEO, local school board president, and local teacher union or association president (where applicable). FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 20

21 DEFINITIONS Achievement gap means the difference in the performance between each subgroup (as defined in this notice) within a participating LEA or school and the statewide average performance of the LEA s or State s highest-achieving subgroups in reading or language arts and in mathematics as measured by the assessments required under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended. College- and career-ready graduation requirements means minimum high school graduation expectations (e.g., completion of a minimum course of study, content mastery, proficiency on collegeand career-ready assessments) that are aligned with a rigorous, robust, and well-rounded curriculum and that cover a wide range of academic and technical knowledge and skills to ensure that by the time students graduate high school, they satisfy requirements for admission into credit-bearing courses commonly required by the State s public four-year degree-granting institutions. College- and career-ready standards means content standards for kindergarten through 12th grade that build towards college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice). A State s college- and career-ready standards must be either (1) standards that are common to a significant number of States; or (2) standards that are approved by a State network of institutions of higher education, which must certify that students who meet the standards will not need remedial course work at the postsecondary level. College enrollment means the enrollment of students who graduate from high school consistent with 34 CFR (b)(1)(i) and who enroll in a public institution of higher education in the State (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1001) within 16 months of graduation. Consortium governance structure means the consortium s structure for carrying out its operations, including (1) The organizational structure of the consortium and the differentiated roles that a member LEA may hold (e.g., lead LEA, member LEA); (2) For each differentiated role, the associated rights and responsibilities, including rights and responsibilities for adopting and implementing the consortium s proposal for a grant; (3) The consortium s method and process (e.g., consensus, majority) for making different types of decisions (e.g., policy, operational); (4) The protocols by which the consortium will operate, including the protocols for member LEAs to change roles or leave the consortium; (5) The consortium s procedures for managing funds received under this grant; (6) The terms and conditions of the memorandum of understanding or other binding agreement executed by each member LEA; and (7) The consortium s procurement process, and evidence of each member LEA s commitment to that process. Core educational assurance areas means the four key areas originally identified in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) to support comprehensive education reform: (1) adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete FY 2013 Race to the Top District Executive Summary Page 21